Education, Department of, State of Hawaii v. L. et al
Plaintiff: Education, Department of, State of Hawaii
Defendant: Ria L. and Rita L.
Case Number: 1:2014cv00034
Filed: January 24, 2014
Court: US District Court for the District of Hawaii
Office: Hawaii Office
County: Honolulu
Presiding Judge: RICHARD L. PUGLISI
Presiding Judge: DERRICK K. WATSON
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities - Other
Cause of Action: 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
January 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER VACATING IN PART THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICER'S DECEMBER 27, 2013 DECISION AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A NEW HEARINGS OFFICER. Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 1/27/2015. ~ The Court vacates th e AHO's December 27, 2013 decision, with the exception of the two issues identified above that were previously affirmed. The Court remands to the Office of Administrative Hearings for further proceedings consistent with this order to be presided over by a new hearings officer, in light of the retirement and unavailability of the original AHO in this case. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
December 15, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND REMANDING DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS OFFICER re 1 . Signed by JUDGE DERRICK K. WATSON on 12/15/2014. ~ The Court affirms the AHO's decision to hold an additional evidentiary hear ing on remand and to deny the DOE's motion to recuse the AHO from the remand proceedings. The Court now remands to the AHO for further explanation of the AHO's December 27, 2013 credibility findings and conclusions with respect to a buse witnesses, including, but not limited to, Balinben, Izumigawa, and Boteilho. The AHO must enumerate specific reasons based on the evidence in the record to support her credibility assessments. (ecs, )CERTIFIC ATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Hawaii District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Education, Department of, State of Hawaii v. L. et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Education, Department of, State of Hawaii
Represented By: Holly T. Shikada
Represented By: Carter K. Siu
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ria L.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Rita L.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?